Makkot 20a — the Talmud in English

Therefore, if

the priest ate

this fig without rectifying it,

he receives one set of lashes!

Because of eating the First Tithe that he separated within this fig, since the terumat maaser had still not been separated from it; and it emerges that he ate in this fig First Tithe that is tevel with regard to terumat maaser.

And

if

a non-priest [

an Israelite ]

ate it, he receives two sets of lashes:

one because of First Tithe that is tevel with regard to terumat maaser, and one because of the teruma in its stem, which is forbidden to non-priests.

And the beraita adds: All this that we said—that the Israelite is liable for two sets of lashes—is only after the priest’s incomplete separation.

For if

the Israelite ate the fig

at the outset,

when it was complete tevel, before the priest had separated any tithes and terumot from it, then if

he ate it, he receives lashes

only once,

because of tevel alone.

And the Gemara infers:

The reason is that it is in Jerusalem.

The reason that Rabbi Yosei holds the Israelite liable for only two sets of lashes is that Rabbi Yosei presented his statement in a case where the non-priest ate the fig while he was in Jerusalem.

This,

it is evident that if he ate it

in the provinces,

even before the fig had seen Jerusalem, the non-priest would

receive three sets of lashes

for eating the fig, while the priest would receive two, since here there is an additional prohibition of eating Second Tithe outside the wall of Jerusalem.

And it implies

that

one is liable for eating Second Tithe outside Jerusalem,

even though

this Second Tithe

was not “seeing the face of the wall”

yet!

And if so, this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said: One is not liable to lashes for eating Second Tithe outside Jerusalem unless the produce had already entered Jerusalem and then went out from it.

The Gemara rejects the proof from this beraita:

You cannot infer from Rabbi Yosei’s words that if he ate the fig outside Jerusalem, he receives lashes also because of eating Second Tithe even if the fig had never been in Jerusalem, for it is possible to establish the inference that you inferred from Rabbi Yosei’s words as referring to a case

where he brought it in,

where he had already brought the Second Tithe up to Jerusalem,

and took it out,

and afterward took it out from Jerusalem to the provinces; and only then does he receive three sets of lashes.

But the Gemara is astonished at establishing the inference from Rabbi Yosei’s words as referring to a case where he had already brought the fig up to Jerusalem:

If so, what does it teach!?

What novelty is there in Rabbi Yosei’s words!?

For the substance of Rabbi Yosei’s words—that a priest receives lashes for eating produce that is tevel with regard to terumat maaser, and that an Israelite also receives lashes for eating teruma gedola—contains no novelty at all.

Therefore, granted, if we say that one should infer from Rabbi Yosei that he receives lashes for Second Tithe that he ate in the provinces even when it had not seen the face of the wall, then it is satisfactory, for it was because of this novelty that his words were stated.

But according to your words this is difficult, for if you maintain that the inference from Rabbi Yosei’s words concerning the prohibition of eating Second Tithe outside the wall applies only in a case where they brought it up to Jerusalem and took it out, this is difficult: what novelty is there in his words!?

And we answer:

With what are we dealing here?

This is the inference that should be inferred from Rabbi Yosei’s words, from the fact that he presented his statement as referring to a fig that had been in Jerusalem—that one receives lashes for eating Second Tithe outside the wall:

for example, where he brought them in,

where he brought the figs up to Jerusalem while they were still

in their tevel state,

and the walls of Jerusalem took hold of the figs that were tevel with regard to the law of the Second Tithe that would be separated from them in the future. From now on, even if they take the produce out of Jerusalem while it is still tevel, and only afterward separate terumot and tithes from it [including Second Tithe], in such a case it is considered that the Second Tithe had already seen the face of Jerusalem [although it was separated from the tevel only after it had left Jerusalem]. Therefore, if he ate it outside Jerusalem, he also receives lashes because of eating Second Tithe outside the wall.

And this is the novelty that Rabbi Yosei innovated in his words: that he receives lashes because of eating Second Tithe outside the wall, even though the fig that he ate saw the face of Jerusalem only while it was in its tevel state.

And

the reason that Rabbi Yosei holds that even a fig brought to Jerusalem in its tevel state is considered as though the Second Tithe that is destined to be separated from it had seen the face of Jerusalem is because

he holds

Rabbi Yosei:

priestly gifts

or tithes, even though

they

still

have not been lifted,

that is, they have not been separated and no designation has been pronounced over them,

are considered as though they had been lifted.

Therefore, when he brought the fig that was tevel up to Jerusalem, it is considered as though the Second Tithe that must be separated from it were already present, and the seeing of the face of the wall was fulfilled for it even before it was separated. Therefore, even if they took it out of Jerusalem while it was still tevel, and he separated the Second Tithe outside Jerusalem, if he ate it outside, he receives lashes for it, according to the law of one who eats outside Jerusalem Second Tithe that saw the face of the wall of Jerusalem.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

Rabbi Yosei hold, “priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted”?

But it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning produce

whose work had not been completed

with regard to becoming obligated in tithing,

and that passed through

the interior of the wall of

Jerusalem, that he should redeem it,

he can still redeem the

Second Tithe of it, and eat it anywhere.

For since its work had not been completed, it had not yet become obligated in tithing, and the produce is not considered tevel with regard to Second Tithe until it is possible to say concerning it, “priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted,” as though they had already seen the face of the wall and had no redemption.

And concerning what did they disagree

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel?

Concerning produce whose work had been completed

with regard to tithing,

and that passed

while it was tevel

through

the interior of

Jerusalem,

and afterward Second Tithe was separated from it.

For Beit Shammai say:

It is no longer possible to redeem the Second Tithe in it, since the walls of Jerusalem had already taken hold of it while this produce was still tevel, and therefore

he shall return its Second Tithe, and eat it in Jerusalem.

And Beit Hillel say:

Although pure Second Tithe that entered Jerusalem no longer has the law of redemption, this produce, which entered Jerusalem in its tevel state, before Second Tithe had been separated from it, can still have its Second Tithe redeemed. Therefore,

he shall redeem

the Second Tithe,

and eat

the produce

anywhere.

And it implies that Beit Hillel hold: priestly gifts that have not been lifted are not considered as though they had been lifted.

And the proof is:

And if it enters your mind

that Rabbi Yosei holds

that priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted,

and produce that is tevel is considered as though the terumot and tithes in it had already been separated, then why do Beit Hillel hold, according to him, that it can be redeemed even if it passed through Jerusalem while it was tevel, and

the walls have taken hold of it

of Jerusalem?

And it is logical that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the words of Beit Hillel, for the halakha is not in accordance with Beit Shammai in a place where Beit Hillel disagrees with them. And since Rabbi Yosei presented the words of Beit Hillel in this manner, it implies that Rabbi Yosei holds that priestly gifts that have not been lifted are not considered as though they had been lifted; and this is difficult for what we said above, that Rabbi Yosei came to teach as a novelty that priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted.

And we answer:

Rava said:

In truth, Rabbi Yosei holds that priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted. Therefore, even produce that entered Jerusalem in its tevel state, and left, and afterward Second Tithe was separated from it, is considered as though the Second Tithe itself had seen the face of Jerusalem; and therefore, if he ate it outside Jerusalem, he is liable to lashes.

But Rabbi Yosei holds, in the words of Beit Hillel, that all this was said only with regard to

a wall for eating [

with regard to the prohibition of eating outside the wall of Jerusalem ], which is a prohibition

by Torah law.

But the matter of

a wall for taking hold [

with regard to the law of redemption, to say that after the produce has been taken hold of by the walls of Jerusalem, it no longer has the law of redemption even if it leaves Jerusalem ], is only a law

by rabbinic decree,

for by Torah law every Second Tithe that is not presently in Jerusalem may be redeemed, and only in Jerusalem itself is it impossible to redeem it by Torah law.

And

therefore Beit Hillel hold that

when the Sages decreed

that it is forbidden to redeem produce after the walls of Jerusalem have taken hold of it, this applies only when the Second Tithe had seen the face of Jerusalem,

when it is present itself,

when the Second Tithe has already been separated. But if the produce was in Jerusalem only

in its tevel state [

when it was tevel ], and the Second Tithe was still not present, in such a case

the Sages did not decree

to prohibit redemption when the produce left Jerusalem, even though priestly gifts that have not been lifted are considered as though they had been lifted.

Ravina said

to resolve the difficulty in another manner: Rabbi Yosei always holds, concerning produce that is tevel and saw Jerusalem, that this is not considered seeing the face of Jerusalem, because he holds that priestly gifts that have not been lifted are not considered as though they had been lifted. And there is no difference between a wall for eating and a wall for taking hold.

And what we inferred from Rabbi Yosei’s words—that a non-priest who ate a fig containing teruma, and First Tithe that is tevel with regard to terumat maaser, and Second Tithe outside Jerusalem, receives three sets of lashes—should not be established as referring to a case where it entered Jerusalem in its tevel state. Rather, it entered Jerusalem after the separation of the Second Tithe. And in truth, Rabbi Yosei holds that produce that saw Jerusalem while it was tevel is not considered as though the Second Tithe in it had seen the face of Jerusalem.

And the novelty in Rabbi Yosei’s words is that even if the Second Tithe itself did not enter Jerusalem, but rather the case is

for example, where he holds it with a staff,

he held the produce of the Second Tithe with a long staff outside the wall, while he himself stood inside the wall; even in such a case it is considered as though the Second Tithe itself entered inside, and one is liable for it if afterward he went out, distanced it, and ate it outside.

And Rav Pappa’s question is resolved

stringently. Above he was uncertain about this matter and did not resolve it, and here it is resolved from Rabbi Yosei’s words: even when he holds the Second Tithe with a staff, it is considered as one who carries the Second Tithe. And wherever the one carrying the Second Tithe sees the face of Jerusalem, although the produce itself does not see the face of Jerusalem, the prohibition against eating the Second Tithe outside the wall takes effect:

Mishna:

The prohibition against rounding the head [shaving the sidelocks], the prohibition against destroying the beard, and the prohibition against making a cut as a sign of grief and mourning for the dead, were stated in the Torah in the portion of Kedoshim [Leviticus 19:27]: “You shall not round the corner of your head, and you shall not destroy the corner of your beard, and a cut for the dead you shall not place in your flesh.”

Likewise, at the beginning of the portion of Emor, the Torah warned the priests with a special warning that they should not make a baldness on their heads and should not make cuts in their flesh as a sign of mourning for a relative who died, and likewise that they should not destroy the corner of their beard, as it is said [Leviticus 21:5]: “They shall not make baldness upon their heads, and they shall not shave the corner of their beard, and in their flesh they shall not make a cut.”

And in the portion of Re’eh [Deuteronomy 14:1], the Torah again prohibited every person from making a baldness or injuring himself for the dead, as it is stated: “You shall not cut yourselves and you shall not make a baldness between your eyes for the dead.”

The Mishna before us is divided into two parts:

At first, the Mishna explains the four prohibitions: two prohibitions that were stated specifically with regard to making a baldness or making a cut for the dead, and two others that were stated everywhere, with regard to rounding the head and destroying the beard.

Afterward, the Mishna explains how many times one receives lashes for these prohibitions:

The first part:

1.

One who makes a baldness on his head

for the dead receives lashes. For it is stated: “And you shall not make a baldness between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), and this verse was stated with regard to every person, both priests and Israelites.

2.

And

likewise

one who rounds the corner of his head,

who shaves the sidelocks of his head and makes the height of the hair at his temples, on both sides of his head, equal to the height of the hair behind his ear, and thereby makes the hair on the upper part of the head resemble a round cap, receives lashes. (And the Gemara will explain how the rounding of the head is performed.) And even if he shaved with scissors, he is liable, as it is stated: “You shall not round the corner of your head” (Leviticus 19:27).

3.

And

likewise

one who destroys the corner of his beard

with a razor receives lashes, as it is stated: “And you shall not destroy the corner of your beard.” ( There )

4.

And

likewise

one who makes one cut for the dead [

who made a wound in his body, whether with his fingernails or with an instrument, because of grief that he had over his dead ]

is liable

for lashes, as it is stated: “And a cut for the dead you shall not place in your flesh” (Leviticus 19:28).

The second part: 1.

For making one cut

because of grief that he had

over five dead persons, or

making

five cuts

because of grief that he had

over one dead person, he is liable

for lashes

for each and every one [

for each and every person, and for each and every cut ]. For it is stated: “And a cut for the dead you shall not place in your flesh.” The verse comes to make one liable for each cut and for each person.

2.

For

rounding the corner of

the head,

he is liable for

two,

two instances of forty lashes:

one

for shaving the sidelock that is

here,

on the right side,

and one

for shaving the sidelock that is

here,

on the left side.

3.

For

destroying the corner of

the beard,

he is liable to five instances of lashes, because the beard has five corners:

two on this side—

one on the upper cheek and one at the place where the cheek joins the chin, on the right side.

And two on this side,

on the left side.

And one below,

on the lower chin, in the middle.

Rabbi Eliezer says: If all of them were removed [

all the corners of the beard ]

at once [

in one action ],

he is liable only

once

for one

set of lashes. Since it is one prohibition, this is like one who eats fat in the amount of two olive-bulks with one warning, who receives only one set of lashes.

And the Mishna adds and says:

And he is not liable

for lashes because of destroying the beard

until

he removes it

[shaves it]

with a razor.

For it is stated concerning Israel, “You shall not destroy the corner of your beard,” and it is stated concerning priests, “Nor shall they shave the corner of their beard.” What is shaving that involves destruction? You must say: this is a razor. C. And the view of Kol Bo (the laws of idolatry) in the name of Rabbi Isaac, and the Meiri in the name of the scholars of the preceding generations, and other early authorities, is that by Torah law it is permitted to round the head with scissors resembling a razor, but by rabbinic law it is forbidden.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he plucked it with a malaket

[with tongs, resembling a small forceps for picking out hairs and pulling them out],

or with a rahitni

[with a plane—a tool with which beams and boards are smoothed],

he is liable

for lashes.

For according to Rabbi Eliezer, even these effect destruction, and it is the way of people to shave with them. Whereas the first tanna holds that although they destroy, it is not the way of people to shave with them, and therefore he is exempt for using them.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

They taught in a beraita: It is stated concerning priests whose relative died,

“They shall not make a baldness

on their heads”

for their dead. (Leviticus 21:5)

One might [say]: Even if he made four or five baldnesses, he should be liable only once,

the verse says, “baldness.”

The word “baldness” is superfluous, and comes

to

teach that he is

liable for each and every baldness

for the dead, with a separate [set of] lashes.

“On their heads”—

what does the verse teach,

what do we learn from the word “on their heads”?

Since it is stated

concerning baldness in Israel for the dead:

“You shall not cut yourselves, nor shall you make a baldness between your eyes for the dead,”

(Deuteronomy 14:1),

one might [say] he is not liable

for making a baldness for the dead

except for

the baldness of the hairs

between the eyes בלבד. From where is it derived to include

a baldness in the hair of

the entire head?

The verse says

concerning priests whose relative died, “They shall not make a baldness

on their heads”—

to include

the hair of

the entire head,

which is forbidden through making a baldness.

And

still

I have no [basis

to learn from “baldness” and “on their heads,” which were written concerning priests, that one is liable for each and every baldness, and that one is liable for the hair of the entire head as for the hair between the eyes,

except

to prohibit this

with priests,

because

the verse added additional mitzvot for them,

and therefore the verse was stringent with them, prohibiting a baldness in all the hair of the head and not only a baldness in the hair between their eyes [as the verse says regarding Israelites], and making them liable for each and every baldness with a separate set of lashes.

An Israelite

who is liable for each and every baldness, and who is liable for the hair of the entire head as for the hair between the eyes,

from where [is this derived]?

This is learned through a gzera shava between baldness in Israel and baldness among priests:

It is stated here,

among priests, “They shall not make

a baldness

on their heads.”

And it is stated there,

among Israelites, “You shall not cut yourselves, nor shall you make

a baldness

between your eyes for the dead.”

Just as there,

here, in the verse concerning priests, the verse taught that one is

liable for each and every baldness, and liable for

the entire

head as for the area between the eyes,

so too here,

concerning baldness in Israel,

he is liable for each and every baldness, and liable for the head as for the area between the eyes.

And just as there

among Israelites, it is explicitly stated in it that the prohibition of making a baldness is specifically

for the dead.

So too here,

among priests, the prohibition of making a baldness is only

for the dead.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And now the Gemara comes to discuss its words: We learned at the beginning of this beraita that from the superfluous “baldness” one learns that even if he made four or five baldnesses, he is liable for each and every baldness,

and we raised a difficulty concerning it:

These four and five baldnesses

concerning which the Torah innovated that he is liable for each and every baldness,

what are the circumstances?

If you say

that he made the baldnesses

one after the other, and with five warnings,

if so,

it is obvious

that he is liable for each and every baldness, and no special teaching is needed for this!?